Another (not) amusing situation - I wrote this as a commentary for the Ontario Birds journal (back in June) - to help explain the need for our BRC to adapt with the times. It wasn't published.
----
The Ontario Bird Records Committee (OBRC) was established in 1981 to replace the Ontario Ornithological Records Committee (OORC), which at that time was no longer meeting the needs of the active field ornithologists of the era.
At its inception, the OBRC was a cutting-edge way to collect, archive and disseminate knowledge. It provided a centralized system for the evaluation of notable bird observations, which in turn supported growth of community knowledge in identification criteria and patterns of occurrence. This happened before the internet, before mobile phones, digital photography, and before large searchable databases of peer reviewed data like eBird existed. This historical context is essential: the conditions that made the OBRC effective in 1981 have changed, while the operations of the OBRC have remained the same.
Modern bird discoveries are now often supported by high-quality digital media, instantaneous communication, more extensive comparative material, and are soon entered into publicly accessible databases. While social media and online platforms have expanded access to information, they have also created an environment where sustained analysis or preservation of valuable material is challenging at best. Notable discussion often occurs rapidly and informally, then disappears into the digital abyss.
What is the purpose of a bird records committee?
The answer to this question, in my opinion, should be the core guiding principle on how bird record committees could or should evolve. I believe that the collection, review, publication and archiving of bird records was not the purpose of the OBRC, they were the actions which supported the true purpose, to increase our knowledge of the status of birds in Ontario and to establish standards of observation and reporting.
In 1981 our community knowledge grew thanks to the actions of the OBRC. The annual report was full of information about unusual bird occurrences that might have otherwise been inaccessible. In 2026, a keen and proactive (often amateur) field ornithologist may not learn anything new within the pages of an OBRC annual report. While at face value this may not seem like a significant concern, it is an unfortunate outcome of stagnation. These particularly keen individuals are the ones most likely to advance our collective community knowledge in the future, but are now doing so outside of the OBRC, and perhaps outside the umbrella of the Ontario Field Ornithologists itself.
What could, or should, change?
The voting structure of a bird records committee was generally designed to handle written accounts. An independent first round of voting would prevent external influence and also to stop “groupthink” with the initial evaluation. These concerns now rarely apply to a modern bird record, where hundreds of photos may be widely published within hours of initial discovery and identifications are discussed in real time. Another core goal of the OBRC, to provide a means by which sight records can gain acceptance as valuable scientific data, is often now accomplished within minutes through an eBird submission. While there are a multitude of ways the process could change, I believe considering how best to once again increase our knowledge of the status of birds in Ontario, and to establish standards of observation and reporting, provides clarity around what should change.
The OBSG Proposal
I have been working with the support of others on how best to shift away from a traditional records committee model toward a structure better aligned with how bird study, documentation, and collaboration now occur. Responsibilities within the group would be separated by function and would not concentrated within a small group of individuals. Instead of strictly casting doubt or rendering judgement, expert review should focus primarily on adding value to a given record through analysis of plumage, molt, age, subspecies, movements, timing, awareness of similar taxa, and other analogous details. This positive evaluation will tease out potential concerns or inconsistencies within a report as they arise, but when they do arise, they would be documented with clear justification for the observer (and community) to learn from. An open, collaborative approach to data collection and review only increases the value that could be added to a report, rather than restricting input or collaboration, which was necessary in the era of written reports. This has another significant potential benefit; no individual or small group of individuals would be able to wield undue influence or control of the decisions of a bird records committee that prioritizes positive and defensible input. Anyone with relevant information to contribute would be able to participate
It should be noted that this can occur while maintaining the historical core actions of a bird records committee, such as the collection, publication and archival of material. Ideally, supporting the outcomes of competitive bird listing would be a positive side effect of our study, rather than the leading justification for the review of reports.
Where do we go next?
Given the scattershot approach to bird study in the modern era, I believe it is time to reprioritize the production of durable and citable outputs, which add value to our collective knowledge. The success of any significant changes will still rely on volunteer support. Bird study and durable outputs are often not inherently suited to modern social media algorithms, and it may not ultimately be wise to compete for attention or engagement in that space.
While data shows a steady decline in support from both the general birding community and among past OBRC members, presenting this data would not alter the fact that change in long-standing institutions is often difficult, particularly when existing systems were built and maintained by committed volunteers. Offering personal examples of concerns may appear selfish in nature. Highlighting impersonal issues may also be viewed as criticism of specific individuals who were involved in a given event.
The OBRC is considered the raison d'ĂȘtre of the Ontario Field Ornithologists by many founding members. Ultimately, this conversation needs to shift from if change is necessary, to how change can be implemented, should proactive, amateur field ornithology will continue to be a part of the Ontario Field Ornithologists in the future.
---
Figure 1. Black Swift. Point Pelee National Park, Ontario. May 17, 2009. This observation was reviewed and accepted by the Ontario Bird Records Committee and appears in eBird outputs. Neither approach addresses the question if this bird hails from the western North American population or the Caribbean population.
---
Figure 2. Carolina Chickadee. Point Pelee National Park, Ontario. May 13, 2013. An account of this record was published in Ontario Birds (Holden and Bell 2016), not through any initiative of the OBRC, but through an independent effort to share the identification process with Ontario birders, with the hope that future records may materialize.
Holden, B.R. and D.M. Bell. 2016. Carolina Chickadee: Second record for Ontario and Canada. Ontario Birds, 34(1): 2–11
---
Figure 3. Possible Chihuahuan Meadowlark. Point Pelee National Park, Ontario. April 25, 2016. When observers no longer see tangible value in supporting a bird records committee, they may stop submitting material or supporting the process. Despite this bird receiving strong support from noted experts as a potential first record for Canada, it has not been submitted to the OBRC or published in Ontario Birds.
